/sci/ - Science & Math

Give him a non-shitty education
I'm guessing you're probably from the states, OP, so that's pretty relevant

tripfaggotry of the highest level

Please don't post science and religion or politics threads. If you actually want to discuss science, please do. If you want to discuss politics, >>>/int/ is a better board for it.

Global warming fag: 99% of scientists agree that global warming is caused by humans and we must stop it!

me: But what about this other informat-

Global warming fag: SHUTUP YOU EVIL REPUBLICAN BABY EATING BASTARD! WHY DONT YOU CARE ABOUT ANYTHING?!?! YOU'RE THE PROBLEM WITH THE WORLD WHY CANT EVERYONE SEE HOW MUCH SMARTER I AM

Me: ....

>>3178114
>me: But what about this other informat-

What about it? Do tell.

>My question is this: How can you convince someone using science and facts when that person DOES NOT CARE about facts?

You can't. You can try and if they have a breaking point you should succeed but if they don't then there is no hope.

>In order to allow scientists to make the world a better place, what should we do about the non-scientist?

Education is the best solution.

>>3178152
>Education is the best solution.

What if they think books are for fags?

>>3178114
>But what about this other informat-

Yes, please. Illuminate us.

>>3178164
Non-voting plebian membership to a country for people that don't want to study.

Citizenship for people that graduate from merit-based education system.

>>3178164
You force children to do education with both positive and negative incentives.

If you are talking about adults, if they don't want to learn there is not much we can do. You just have to learn to sage, ignore and move on.

Now as it is in US there are so many retards that have actual power to change matter for worse i would love to see some form of "expert decide" system.

Also mental institutions can help for the worst case people.

>>3178177
what if they ram their pitchforks up your ass

op is approaching the argument from a somewhat scientific perspective.

as a god believer i see nothing in science that goes against my belief in god.
as a scientist i have seen nothing that goes against my belief in god.

if its politics you want to talk about, then its usually a case of game plan.

its not a case of proving global warming but affecting change that will reduce global warming.

its like oil, in 150 years its probably all gone.. if somebody thinks that the only thing that will change are the oil prices... they are sorely mistaken

Climate change is hardly science, if you ask me.

Ask any chaos theory dude out there.

>what should we do about the non-scientist

What's the point? The problem will solve itself.

This is largely an American problem, and other nations (China especially) are overtaking them both economically and technologically thanks in no small part to the whole anti-science thing. An anti-science movement in a dying culture is irrelevant to the world as a whole.

>>3178195

Then you do the same thing to them that happens to anyone who attempts to take your life in a modern society.

>>OP:

The only real problem has to do with rationality. I have no problem with people being religious. I have no problem with people believing whatever the fuck they want to believe. I DO have a problem when they try to force those beliefs and the morality that comes with them on others, by either legislation, interference in education, or attempting to argue that opinion is equivalent to fact.

Rational religious people like >>3178201 are perfectly fine in my mind. As long as you can compartmentalize or reason clearly, you are fine.

The problem at it's heart is this: There is no rational argument you can make to an irrational person that will convince them that rational arguments are inherently better. You can't prove the primacy of logic to someone dedicated to illogic. There is no evidence that can prove the usefulness of evidence to someone determined not to see it.

The best way to fight this is education. educate children in critical thinking skills, let them figure things out for themselves, instil in them at a young age to question everything and to be always willing to change their minds based on presented evidence.

This will lead them naturally to a path of rationality. It worked for me.

>>3178195

Why aren't they watching television? For that matter, why do they own pitchforks? They don't do any work.

>>3178231

the uptake of religious education in schools would be greater than that of science..
by students.

in an ever changing society as you see it today, which would be the more valuable teaching "rationally"

>>3178246

...What?

>>3178114
Retard detected. You have no information. Seriously.

if i try to explain that then it becomes muddled.
fill in the gaps.

society is desensitized.. you dont know it because you are guess what?

i hate talking about morals but they are a little deeper than the ten commandments.

an adult (4chan) will not approach religion in the same way as a child.. the effect is not the same.

i have lived through at least twenty years of tv and media..and after that, i would rather raise my kids by the book rather than by the tv.. tv being a symbol of todays society.

also looking back at school and 4chan, i would say that the science i learned in school has left my mind a long time ago.
the science i learned in college is a memory of teachers being friends and good times.

university science just put me into career mode.

scientists will love science and be drawn to it, no matter the age.. the same can be said about religion.. but shoving your beliefs on kids is wrong if its done by removing another perspective of understanding.

>>3178246

>the uptake of religious education in schools would be greater than that of science..
by students.

because i was never any good at science

>>3178361
>i would rather raise my kids by the book rather than by the tv
You don't want to raise your kids yourself?

>>3178385

well are you the book or the tv?

>>3178380
>>3178361

There is a difference between teaching science and rationality.

When I say "Teach rationality" I don't mean physics, chemistry, biology... not everybody likes those fields, and that is fine.

I mean the scientific method. Rationality. Resolving questions through examining evidence, making guesses, testing those guesses, and always being willing to change your mind if the evidence doesn't support your guesses.

"That which can be destroyed by the truth should be."

>>3178201 oil gone

But we can make more oil.

>>3178394

i think rationally is about as subjective as truth.

let me put things into perspective science can look at a thing and figure out how it works.
but if you put a person in a cage and let scientist get to work on him, the only time they will learn is when they stop using the scientific method.

its a crap analogy and dismissive of my science background but it holds some truth.

>>3178430
>if you put a person in a cage and let scientist get to work on him, the only time they will learn is when they stop using the scientific method.

There's no reason to believe this assertion is true at all. Furthermore as an analogy it's a complete non-sequitur.

>>3178429

its the plastics im worried about

>>3178430

Truth is not subjective.

There are things that are objectively true.

You can believe 2+2=5 as much as you want, but it will never be true. It can be proven to be false.

I'm not sure where you are even coming from in the cage analogy, as there is no evidence for that at all. It's not even a real situation, since you never explain what you mean by "go to work on him" or "learn", since I can think so several definitions of both of those that would make it a true case. Hell, that is how the experimental method WORKS, albeit usually without a cage.

>>3178651

i have a 8 lap race, how many laps do i have to do as i start my fourth lap?

>>3178657

You have to do 0 as you start your forth lap, because you are starting a lap.

If you meant BEFORE the lap, three. If you meant after and including the lap, 5.

Asking the wrong or a trick question does not invalidate truth.

http://yudkowsky.net/rational/the-simple-truth

>>3178657

Does the Earth's crust contain silicon?

You're confusing ambiguity with subjectiveness.

Or rather, you're not confused at all and are doing it on purpose because you are intellectually dishonest.

>>3178651
You ignorant boy.

Explain any mathematical axiom as a basic construction of smaller axioms.

kk thx.

>>3178677
>>3178680

i did it on purpose, i counted five using my fingers. if that makes me dishonest than i am.
if i write down the numbers than there are four more laps.

anyway i understand its either black or white

>>3178681

"[T]here is an evident absurdity in pretending to demonstrate a matter of fact, or to prove it by any arguments a priori. Nothing is demonstrable, unless the contrary implies a contradiction. Nothing, that is distinctly conceivable, implies a contradiction. Whatever we conceive as existent, we can also conceive as non-existent. There is no being, therefore, whose non-existence implies a contradiction. Consequently there is no being, whose existence is demonstrable."

-Hume.

Axioms are things we assume to be true, because if they are true then things which can be shown to be true experimentally must be true, and this truth trickles down to said axioms.

The idea of what is true is subject to change. Truth is objective, but it is not eternal or all-powerful. What seems to be true now may only seem that way because we lack certain evidence. But it is true as far as our current understanding goes, and that is all we can hope for until that understanding changes.

>>3178700

No, there aren't, you are just doing the math wrong.

Starting 4th Lap = 3 laps finished.

8 laps - 3 laps finished = 5 laps remaining.

Calling it the "4th" lap is just a phrase. It's only a lap when it has been completed, at the start it is simply the end of the 3rd.

good question op

>>3178709

four doesnt exist!!

no my friend, he asked a question and i gave an answer.. science how does it work.

anyway im not somebody thats bated easily, he should ask harder questions.

so my arrogance grows

>>3178697
tl;dr

>look mom I found a quote
>what does it say
>I DONT KNOW BUT IT IS MEANINGFUL

>mfw ISM

I thought you'd died. Oh well.

>>3178726

See OP, this is an excellent example of how someone who is inherently illogical cannot be convinced by opposing evidence. By accepting their position as truth and discounting or explaining away all contrary evidence, they maintain their own belief system and feeling of superiority.

>>3178725

I'm going to be brutally honest here.

I have no idea what the fuck you are saying. Is English not your fist language? Because those sentences make no sense at all in context.

>>3178725
ahem,
4=3 and now im just pissin myself off

>>3178743

no its not illogical, i know what op is saying..its the truth.
unfortunately there are examples that muddy the water and this is what science should be.. what is the mud?

op will make a great scientist if he becomes somebody that can learn to change his understanding.. otherwise no new discoveries

What is now proved was once only imagined.

>>3178758

I agree entirely with that point of your argument. There is such thing as objective Truth, but it is always subject to change. The only way to absolutely know something is to know everything that could possibly effect that thing, and we are nowhere near that level of understanding. You always have to be willing to change your beliefs on a subject if the evidence proves it to be wrong. That was my whole argument, "That which can be destroyed by the truth, should be."

As long as you are willing to change opinions, you are on the right path. The man who pursues one truth above all others makes that truth a falsehood, and becomes a fanatic.

If I had it my little way, the world would be ran by the scientific experts of their fields. The public is far too stupid to be making the big decisions, the scientific elite should be gathering together and making choices on how to proceed with various technology and discoveries. The idiot public will just have to deal with it.

When something big is going to be done, for things like energy for example, the super elites would release a quick statement that basically goes "This is the problem, here is our solution, this is what you can expect, and here is how you can help."

Without the general public throwing fits over things they have little understanding of and blocking anything they don't like or disagrees with their superstitions, the world would quickly be much better.

>>3178788

My ideal government is a benevolent dictatorship with leaders and advisors chosen by meritocracy. Experts would be consulted on decisions that involved their specific fields, and general data would be pulled from the average people in that field in the form of surveys on different options or suggestions.

>>3178802
Dude... I've wanted something like this too.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks this.

>>3178743
>See OP, this is an example of how someone intelligent can delude themselves into thinking that what they see as right and rational on every single subject means every new object of preponderance is immediately discoverable and categorized into preceding information.
>This also means that all objects with any fuzzyness about their existence must be either strictly codified into existing language or entirely thrown out due to the inability of the current paradigm to explain them in a way that some hurr durr won't take his words out of context.

>See OP, some scientists what to be right regardless of reality, such that they try to match the fervor of their support with the fervor of their denialists, essentially making them just as inane, insane and wanton for ignorance.

>>3178834

It's basically the best-case scenario. Authoritarianism works, it gets shit done over short periods of time. Yes, Stalin, Mao, and Hitler were all evil sonsofabitches and should never have been given control over anything above a toaster oven, but their methods worked. Russia under Stalin advanced 100 years technologically in 10. China as well went from an agrarian almost feudal society into a technological power.

The difficult part is getting moral leaders into these kinds of positions of power. One who wants the best for all members of his society, and understands that the members of those society cannot always be trusted to know what is in their best interest.

>>3178857

I never said any of that. In fact I clearly state the opposite, that everything we know is just our best estimate based on current data. In the case of things with "fuzzyness" (I'm not sure exactly what you mean by that) we still take the best guess based on available data.

Sometimes that guess is "It doesn't exist." or "It is not relevant." These are not incorrect guesses if that is what the data supports.

>>3178886
Oh young man, run along. Let real scientists work.

>>3178802

This would be fine as well. As long as the ignorant public doesn't get to have their way with big complex issues. I probably feel this way because I live in America and live through it every day, it feels like every time I read/see the news here someone is crying about not having their views/opinions catered to.

>>3178802
And then the douche at the top gets paranoid or more power hungry and people start getting executed. It sounds good in theory but it's just as unrealistic as utopian communism or technocracy, and as far as real implementation goes social democracy is vastly better.

>>3178886

I wouldn't be so quick to praise Mao Zedong, China lost about 20 years of economic growth and took a huge wollop to their standard of living thanks to the Great Leap Forward.

It wasn't until the 1970s with Deng Xiaoping that China rapidly industrialized. Before then it was like any other Third World shithole

>>3178915
>fights with hubris
>loses irrational fortitude
>can't accept human frailty.

>>3178915

Except the people under him still have the ability to remove him in that case. I never said there would be no checks and balances at all. By necessity, it would be a system that requires a lot of thought in it's structuring.
>>3178928

This is true, but the new government was just as authoritarian as Mao's, if more effective as the process of pacifying the populace and dealing with uprisings had been taken care of.

I freely admit none of the above dictators were perfect, hell, far from it. But that doesn't change the fact that authoritarian government is effective, which was the argument.

>>3178907

And this, OP, is an example of an argument known as an "Ad hominem"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

It is an argument wherein, if you cannot find fault with the presented data or argument in order to attack, you instead attack the character of the person making the argument. It is an indication of a weak position.

>>3178955
You sir are a genius. You've categorized almost every form of argument so that you can whip it out to substantiate almost any claim you make or deride any deterrent you have.

If I were a betting man, I'd wager than your brain is so full of fuck, that theres no actually connection from one 'factoid' to the next, and it's all just miasma of beliefs undifferentiated from that of a bat shit crazy religious holyworshiper.

>>3178967

Actually, I really just don't like people whose response to any argument they don't agree with is "You are a faggot." and not an actual rebuttal.

>>3178955
>Except the people under him still have the ability to remove him in that case. I never said there would be no checks and balances at all. By necessity, it would be a system that requires a lot of thought in it's structuring.
But if there are checks on the Dear Leader's power, it's just politics, and either he'll end up as shitty a ruler as democratic governments today or he'll end up grabbing as much power as he can. Direct democracy with a citizenship requirement is the only way to get around the fact that politics fuck everything up.

>>3178981

I hate even more when my responses get "Wow what a nerd, why do you know all this?"

Anti-intellectualism bothers me.

>>3178981
YOu're a puppet. I'm sorry, you've constructed your arguments to derail your denialists, rather than in a manner that elucidates your rationality.

As smart as you may be, you've turned inwards in a hurr durr manner.

>>3178983

In that case it's more the character of the people in power. The old adage goes "Great leaders don't seek power, but have power thrust upon them", You need to select people who don't want power for the sake of power, and your whole government needs to be composed of these kinds of people.

>>3178996

Yes, I agree with this as well. Argument is a skill like any other. Of course it has been studied and categorized.

>>3179007

That would be because I've already presented arguments for my position, had no contradictions to those arguments from my "denialists", who have merely attacked me instead of attacking the arguments themselves.

I have presented my arguments. The onus is on them to attack them rather than on me to keep on making new arguments in the absence of any contradicting points.

>>3178201
As a scientist you shouldn't be believing things for which there is no evidence.

>>3178996
Worst thing ever :|
When I'm around my dumb friends I often have to just not say things I know because I know that shit's going to happen if I do speak up.
>>3179020
Well, as long as you're vaguely aware of how desperately you're pretending that kind of government's even remotely realistic, there's nothing more I can say, I just don't get how you can possibly think that'd be better than an actual working technocracy.

>>3179070

Oh, I'm not saying it would be. I was speaking ideally.

Realistically I'd support any type of government which worked objectively better than the current one. A functional technocracy would be a step in the right direction, and may actually be more practical in the short term, in which case I'm all for it.

What if, by using the scientific method, you determined that the scientific method is fatally flawed. Then what? Does your head explode at that point?

>Killing people who choose to believe in things other than scientific inquiry.

It's really hilarious. How long til we start our own crusades?

>>3179210

Then we adopt whatever new method is most useful.

That's how it works.

Of course it would have to be a pretty out there experiment to show the scientific method as false. I mean on the level of "I wave this wand and violate the laws of thermodynamics."

>>3179229
>Implying ISM speaks for anyone at all, even himself